Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Tightening constraints on primordial oscillations with latest ACT and SPT data

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Combining Planck with ACT and SPT data sets the tightest limits yet on primordial oscillations, excluding amplitudes above about 0.03 at 95% confidence.

desk verdict Useful incremental constraint paper on primordial oscillations with new combined CMB data; needs a supplement fix and a clearer statement on how the ACT+SPT likelihoods are combined. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17276 v2 pith:RX4QO2SO submitted 2025-07-23 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-th

Ze-Yu Peng , Yun-Song Piao This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COgr-qchep-th
keywords primordialoscillationspowerspectrumcosmicmicrowavebackgroundinflationACTDR6SPT-3GD1Planckoscillationamplitudeconstraints
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Primordial oscillations are periodic wiggles in the spectrum of density fluctuations left behind by inflation, and detecting one would point to physics beyond the simplest slow-roll models. The paper searches for these wiggles in the latest Planck, ACT DR6, and SPT-3G D1 CMB data, fitting templates with logarithmic and linear oscillation arguments. It reports that the combined data set yields the tightest upper limits so far, $A_\log < 0.0286$ and $A_\mathrm{lin} < 0.0267$ at 95% confidence, and that there is no hint of primordial oscillations. A sympathetic reader would care because these numbers substantially shrink the parameter space in which a generic oscillation signal could still be hiding in the CMB.

What carries the argument

The analysis turns on the two-parameter oscillation template of Eq. (1), $P_R(k)=P_{R,0}(k)[1 + A_l\cos(\omega_l (k/k_*)^l + \phi_l)]$ for $l=\log$ or $\mathrm{lin}$, with $P_{R,0}$ the standard power-law spectrum, $k_*=0.05\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$, and the logarithmic case defined by $(k/k_*)^{\log}=\log(k/k_*)$. This template fixes the oscillation to constant amplitude, constant frequency, and constant phase, so $A_\log$ and $A_\mathrm{lin}$ are the only new strength parameters. The statistical comparison is carried out by MCMC over the cosmological parameters plus $(A_l,\omega_l,\phi_l)$, using foreground-marginalized likelihoods for ACT and SPT together with Planck, and reporting both one-dimensional amplitude posteriors and $\Delta\chi^2$ differences from the no-oscillation model.

What would settle it

An injection-recovery test would settle the claim: add a synthetic oscillation with $A=0.05$ and a frequency inside the scanned prior to the best-fit $\Lambda$CDM skies, run the same Planck+SPT+ACT likelihood, and check whether the 95% limit still excludes $A=0.05$; if the pipeline fails to recover a signal of that amplitude, the reported limits overstate the data's reach. A cross-experiment check would also do: a peak at the same frequency and phase appearing in both Planck and SPT+ACT residuals would contradict the paper's reading of the apparent peaks as statistical fluctuations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the newest high-resolution CMB measurements, when added to Planck, do not prefer an oscillatory primordial power spectrum. The best-fit oscillating models improve the fit only marginally, with $\Delta\chi^2$ of about $-8$ for logarithmic and $-6$ for linear oscillations relative to the standard power-law spectrum, corresponding to preferences below $2\sigma$. The 95% upper limits on the oscillation amplitudes drop to $0.0286$ for logarithmic and $0.0267$ for linear oscillations, below the Planck-only values of $0.0387$ and $0.0357$. The apparent frequency-localized peaks seen in Planck or in SPT+ACT separately do not align with each other and are not supported when the data are combined, which the paper reads as statistical fluctuations rather than a real signal.

Load-bearing premise

The constraint assumes an oscillation, if present, has exactly the template of Eq. (1): one constant-amplitude cosine in $k$ or $\log k$ on top of a smooth power-law spectrum. A signal that is damped, chirped, or has a scale-dependent amplitude or frequency would not be captured by this template and could escape the reported limits.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, the combined Planck+SPT+ACT data set excludes, at 95% confidence, constant-amplitude logarithmic and linear oscillations above $A_\log<0.0286$ and $A_\mathrm{lin}<0.0267$.
  • These are the tightest CMB constraints to date, a direct improvement over the Planck-only bounds of roughly $0.038$, so models predicting oscillation amplitudes above these values are now in tension with current data.
  • The absence of corroboration between Planck and the ground-based experiments means the earlier mild hints in Planck, up to $2.3\sigma$ for linear oscillations, should not be interpreted as evidence for new physics.
  • The combined analysis keeps the 95% upper limits on amplitude below $0.05$ across all scanned frequencies, so no frequency-specific window is left open at that amplitude.
  • Future high-resolution CMB surveys should push the same constraints further, since their polarization measurements sharpen the high-multipole transfer functions where the oscillation signal would appear.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper's template, the same likelihood combination could be run with damped or chirped oscillation models; I would expect the limits to weaken, because a signal spread over a range of frequencies is harder to exclude with a single-frequency template.
  • The no-signal result, combined with existing large-scale-structure searches, suggests the generic single-frequency oscillation window is closing; future gains may come from model-specific predictions such as resonant or standard-clock signals rather than from broader amplitude limits.
  • If the paper's comment about the Hubble tension is right and an early-dark-energy-like resolution shifts $n_s$ toward 1, the oscillation limits could move with the background cosmology; re-fitting with extended cosmological models would be a straightforward test of whether the constraints are cosmology-dependent.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper constrains logarithmic and linear oscillations in the primordial power spectrum using the template of Eq. (1), applied to Planck PR3/PR4 data, ACT DR6, SPT-3G D1, CMB lensing, DESI BAO, and Pantheon+ supernovae. The central result is that the combined Planck+SPT+ACT dataset gives 95% upper limits Alog < 0.0286 and Alin < 0.0267, which the authors describe as the most stringent CMB constraints for these templates and as showing no hint of primordial oscillations. The main-text analysis is internally consistent, with the Δχ² components in Table III summing to the quoted totals, but the supplemental χ² tables contain clear numerical discrepancies for the Planck rows.

Significance. If the result holds, it is a useful and timely update: it demonstrates that high-ℓ polarization data from ACT DR6 and SPT-3G D1, when combined with Planck, tighten the existing Planck-only upper limits on these oscillation templates by roughly 25–35%. The paper makes good use of publicly available likelihoods, states its priors and convergence criterion (R−1 < 0.02), and provides a transparent Δχ² decomposition and a set of falsifiable amplitude upper limits. The main weaknesses are not in the internal logic of the main text but in the incomplete documentation of the joint ACT+SPT likelihood treatment and a reporting inconsistency in the supplemental tables.

major comments (3)
  1. [Datasets and Methods] The SPT+ACT and Planck+SPT+ACT combinations are presented as combining the SPT-lite and ACT-lite likelihoods (footnotes 2–4), but the manuscript does not state whether these lite likelihoods account for the overlapping sky coverage and correlated noise between ACT DR6 and SPT-3G. Because the headline upper limits come from the combined dataset, the authors should explicitly describe the joint covariance or the cross-survey treatment, and ideally validate the combined likelihood against the published joint SPT-3G+ACT analysis; without this, the reader cannot assess whether the combined constraints double-count shared sky.
  2. [Supplemental Tables II and III] Supplemental Tables II and III list Planck χ² = 2423.14 and 2420.42 for the logarithmic and linear oscillation models, while Supplemental Table I lists χ² = 2231.40 for the standard model. These values imply Δχ² ≈ +190, contradicting the main-text Table III values of −8.26 and −10.97; the expected entries are 2223.14 and 2220.42. The authors must correct these tables and verify the χ² bookkeeping for all datasets.
  3. [Results, Table III] The preference levels quoted in the text (1.7σ and 2.3σ for Planck, 1.3–1.8σ for the combined sets) are derived from Δχ² without accounting for the look-elsewhere effect: the templates have free frequencies up to ω = 100 and free phases, so the effective number of independent oscillatory modes is large. The 'no hint' conclusion would be more robust with a trial-corrected significance or an analogous Bayesian model comparison; at minimum the paper should state that the quoted σ levels are local rather than global.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Main text, Table III caption] The caption does not define the sign convention for Δχ²; add a note that Δχ² = χ²_osc − χ²_std.
  2. [Supplemental Tables I–III] Several supplemental entries contain typos, e.g., Ωc h² best-fit '0.011792' should likely be '0.11792', '100Ωb h² (0.2257)' should likely be a value near 2.25, and τ_reio '0.634' should likely be '0.0634'. Please proofread all numeric entries.
  3. [Figures 1 and 3] The 1D and 2D posterior figures lack axis labels on the vertical axes; adding explicit labels (e.g., 'posterior density' and '68%/95% contours') would improve readability.
  4. [Supplemental numbering] The supplemental tables are numbered I–III, identical to the main-text Table I–III numbering; rename them S1–S3 to avoid confusion.
  5. [Conclusion and Abstract] The conclusion states 'no hint for primordial oscillations' without explicitly restricting the statement to the single-frequency, constant-amplitude templates of Eq. (1); the abstract and conclusion should make this template-specific scope explicit.
  6. [Conclusion] There is a typo in 'showedns' which should read 'shows ns'; the sentence should also be split for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the oscillation amplitude constraints are direct fits to external CMB likelihoods, not predictions derived from their own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a set of upper limits on the oscillation amplitudes A_log and A_lin obtained by MCMC fits to Planck, ACT DR6, and SPT-3G D1 likelihoods. The amplitudes are free parameters in the template of Eq. (1), and the reported 95% C.L. bounds are the resulting posterior constraints, so nothing is being 'predicted' from a quantity that was itself fitted to the same target. The templates are taken from prior external literature (Refs. [7,12]), not from the authors' own work, and no uniqueness theorem or forced ansatz is invoked to select them. The self-citations ([73-80]) appear only in the concluding speculation about early dark energy and the Hubble tension, where they are not load-bearing for the oscillation constraints. The combined ACT+SPT analysis uses publicly released likelihood products from the ACT and SPT collaborations; any concern about double-counting overlapping sky is a data-combination robustness issue, not a circularity of the type defined here. The reported bounds are externally anchored to the actual CMB datasets, so the derivation chain is self-contained against its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the assumption that the fitted oscillation templates are the correct physical models and that the compressed likelihoods are unbiased. Standard cosmological parameters are fitted simultaneously, but the oscillation amplitudes, frequencies, and phases are free parameters with flat priors. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • A_log = < 0.0286 (95% C.L.)
    Amplitude of logarithmic oscillation, fitted to CMB data with a flat prior [0, 0.5].
  • A_lin = < 0.0267 (95% C.L.)
    Amplitude of linear oscillation, fitted to CMB data with a flat prior [0, 0.5].
  • omega_log = unconstrained
    Frequency of logarithmic oscillation, fitted with a flat prior [0, 100].
  • omega_lin = unconstrained
    Frequency of linear oscillation, fitted with a flat prior [0, 100].
  • phi_log = unconstrained
    Phase of logarithmic oscillation, fitted with a flat prior [0, 2*pi].
  • phi_lin = unconstrained
    Phase of linear oscillation, fitted with a flat prior [0, 2*pi].
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The oscillatory PPS is exactly given by Eq. (1) with constant amplitude, frequency, and phase over the full k range probed.
    Used to derive the constraints; realistic models with scale-dependent or damped oscillations could evade them.
  • domain assumption The ACT-lite and SPT-lite foreground-marginalized likelihoods preserve the information relevant to oscillations and are unbiased.
    The analysis uses these compressed likelihoods as the data model; any approximation here directly propagates into the upper limits.
  • domain assumption Planck data can be truncated at lmax=1000 for TT and 600 for TE and EE without loss of oscillation constraining power.
    Follows Refs. [41,43]; this cut is standard for combined analyses but remains an external choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tightening constraints on primordial oscillations with latest ACT and SPT data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RX4QO2SO

@misc{pith2026250717276,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tightening constraints on primordial oscillations with latest ACT and SPT data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RX4QO2SO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17276}
}
abstract

The oscillation feature in primordial power spectrum (PPS), a fingerprint of not only a wide class of models of inflation but new physics, is of significant theoretical interest, and can be imprinted on the cosmic microwave background (CMB). In this work, we present constraints on periodic oscillations in the PPS using the latest ACT DR6 and SPT-3G D1 CMB data with the precise measurements at high multipoles beyond the Planck angular resolution and sensitivity. It is found that the combination of SPT and ACT with Planck CMB dataset significantly tightens the upper bound to $A_\mathrm{log,lin}\lesssim 0.029$ at $95\%$ C.L., showing no hint for primordial oscillations, where $A_\mathrm{log,lin}$ are the amplitudes of logarithmic and linear oscillation in the PPS, respectively. Our work presents state-of-the-art CMB constraints on primordial oscillations, highlighting the power of the ground-based CMB experiments in constraining physics beyond the simplest slow-roll models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.17276 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. 1D posterior distributions of the logarithmic (left) and linear (right) oscillating amplitudes, obtained using Planck, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Primordial power spectra with the logarithmic and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The 2D posterior distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The CMB spectral residuals of the best-fit models with logarithmic and linear oscillations obtained using Planck [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Inverse-k Primordial Oscillations from a Symbolic Regression Search

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Symbolic regression on Planck and Planck+ACT+SPT independently selects an inverse-k primordial oscillation cos(B/k)≈cos(4/k) that weakly outperforms linear and log templates.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D 23, 347 (1981)

    1981

  2. [2]

    A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B 108, 389 (1982)

    1982

  3. [3]

    Albrecht and P

    A. Albrecht and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1220 (1982)

    1982

  4. [4]

    A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B 91, 99 (1980)

    1980

  5. [5]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (BICEP, Keck), Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 151301 (2021), arXiv:2110.00483 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Akrami et al

    Y. Akrami et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A10 (2020), arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    A. A. Starobinsky, JETP Lett. 55, 489 (1992)

    work page 1992

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    J. A. Adams, B. Cresswell, and R. Easther, Phys. Rev. D 64, 123514 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0102236

    2001 arXiv

  2. [10]

    X. Wang, B. Feng, M. Li, X.-L. Chen, and X. Zhang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 14, 1347 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0209242

    2005

  3. [11]

    Gong, JCAP 07, 015 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0504383

    J.-O. Gong, JCAP 07, 015 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0504383

    2005

  4. [12]

    Slosar et al

    A. Slosar et al. , Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 51, 98 (2019), arXiv:1903.09883 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Ach´ ucarro et al

    A. Ach´ ucarro et al. , (2022), arXiv:2203.08128 [astro- ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Cai and Y.-S

    Y. Cai and Y.-S. Piao, Phys. Rev. D 103, 083521 (2021), arXiv:2012.11304 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Cai and Y.-S

    Y. Cai and Y.-S. Piao, JHEP 06, 067 (2022), arXiv:2201.04552 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Y. Cai, M. Zhu, and Y.-S. Piao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 021001 (2024), arXiv:2305.10933 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Martin and R

    J. Martin and R. H. Brandenberger, Phys. Rev. D 63, 123501 (2001), arXiv:hep-th/0005209

    2001 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Easther, B

    R. Easther, B. R. Greene, W. H. Kinney, and G. Shiu, Phys. Rev. D 66, 023518 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0204129

    2002 arXiv

  11. [19]

    U. H. Danielsson, Phys. Rev. D 66, 023511 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0203198

    2002 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Baumann and L

    D. Baumann and L. McAllister, Inflation and String The- ory, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2015) arXiv:1404.2601 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Silverstein and A

    E. Silverstein and A. Westphal, Phys. Rev. D 78, 106003 (2008), arXiv:0803.3085 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  14. [22]

    McAllister, E

    L. McAllister, E. Silverstein, and A. Westphal, Phys. Rev. D 82, 046003 (2010), arXiv:0808.0706 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Flauger, L

    R. Flauger, L. McAllister, E. Pajer, A. Westphal, and G. Xu, JCAP 06, 009 (2010), arXiv:0907.2916 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Chen, JCAP 01, 038 (2012), arXiv:1104.1323 [hep-th]

    X. Chen, JCAP 01, 038 (2012), arXiv:1104.1323 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  17. [25]

    X. Chen, M. H. Namjoo, and Y. Wang, JCAP 02, 013 (2016), arXiv:1509.03930 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  18. [26]

    X. Chen, A. Loeb, and Z.-Z. Xianyu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 121301 (2019), arXiv:1809.02603 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Easther, W

    R. Easther, W. H. Kinney, and H. Peiris, JCAP 05, 009 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0412613

    2005 arXiv

  20. [28]

    P. D. Meerburg, D. N. Spergel, and B. D. Wandelt, Phys. Rev. D 89, 063536 (2014), arXiv:1308.3704 [astro- ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  21. [29]

    P. D. Meerburg and D. N. Spergel, Phys. Rev. D 89, 063537 (2014), arXiv:1308.3705 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Peiris, R

    H. Peiris, R. Easther, and R. Flauger, JCAP 09, 018 (2013), arXiv:1303.2616 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Easther and R

    R. Easther and R. Flauger, JCAP 02, 037 (2014), arXiv:1308.3736 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  24. [32]

    M. Aich, D. K. Hazra, L. Sriramkumar, and T. Souradeep, Phys. Rev. D 87, 083526 (2013), arXiv:1106.2798 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Beutler, M

    F. Beutler, M. Biagetti, D. Green, A. Slosar, and B. Wal- lisch, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 033209 (2019), arXiv:1906.08758 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Ballardini, F

    M. Ballardini, F. Finelli, F. Marulli, L. Moscardini, and A. Veropalumbo, Phys. Rev. D 107, 043532 (2023), arXiv:2202.08819 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Mergulh˜ ao, F

    T. Mergulh˜ ao, F. Beutler, and J. A. Peacock, JCAP 08, 012 (2023), arXiv:2303.13946 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Braglia, X

    M. Braglia, X. Chen, and D. K. Hazra, JCAP 06, 005 (2021), arXiv:2103.03025 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Braglia, X

    M. Braglia, X. Chen, and D. K. Hazra, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 498 (2022), arXiv:2106.07546 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Braglia, X

    M. Braglia, X. Chen, and D. K. Hazra, Phys. Rev. D 105, 103523 (2022), arXiv:2108.10110 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Braglia, X

    M. Braglia, X. Chen, D. K. Hazra, and L. Pinol, JCAP 03, 014 (2023), arXiv:2210.07028 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Petretti, M

    C. Petretti, M. Braglia, X. Chen, D. Kumar Hazra, and S. Paban, JCAP 06, 035 (2025), arXiv:2411.03459 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Louis et al

    T. Louis et al. (ACT), (2025), arXiv:2503.14452 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Calabrese et al

    E. Calabrese et al. (ACT), (2025), arXiv:2503.14454 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Camphuis et al

    E. Camphuis et al. (SPT-3G), (2025), arXiv:2506.20707 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Chluba, J

    J. Chluba, J. Hamann, and S. P. Patil, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 24, 1530023 (2015), arXiv:1505.01834 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Antony, F

    A. Antony, F. Finelli, D. K. Hazra, D. Paoletti, and A. Shafieloo, (2024), arXiv:2403.19575 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  38. [46]

    D. K. Hazra, M. Aich, R. K. Jain, L. Sriramkumar, and T. Souradeep, JCAP 10, 008 (2010), arXiv:1005.2175 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Ashoorioon, A

    A. Ashoorioon, A. Krause, and K. Turzynski, JCAP 02, 014 (2009), arXiv:0810.4660 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Achucarro, J.-O

    A. Achucarro, J.-O. Gong, S. Hardeman, G. A. Palma, and S. P. Patil, JCAP 01, 030 (2011), arXiv:1010.3693 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Konieczka, R

    M. Konieczka, R. H. Ribeiro, and K. Turzynski, JCAP 07, 030 (2014), arXiv:1401.6163 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  42. [50]

    The templates we consider for the corresponding lin- ear and logarithmical oscillating PPS are, e.g.[7, 12], as shown in Fig

    and the axion monodromy model [21–23] can lead to logarithmically oscillating signals in the PPS. The templates we consider for the corresponding lin- ear and logarithmical oscillating PPS are, e.g.[7, 12], as shown in Fig. 2: PR(k) = PR,0(k) 1 + Al cos ωl( k k∗ )l + ϕl , (1) ...

    2025 arXiv

  43. [51]

    X. Chen, R. Easther, and E. A. Lim, JCAP 04, 010 (2008), arXiv:0801.3295 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A5 (2020), arXiv:1907.12875 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Carron, M

    J. Carron, M. Mirmelstein, and A. Lewis, JCAP 09, 039 (2022), arXiv:2206.07773 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Balkenhol, C

    L. Balkenhol, C. Trendafilova, K. Benabed, and S. Galli, Astron. Astrophys. 686, A10 (2024), arXiv:2401.13433 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    M. S. Madhavacheril et al. (ACT), Astrophys. J. 962, 113 (2024), arXiv:2304.05203 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    F. J. Qu et al. (ACT), Astrophys. J. 962, 112 (2024), arXiv:2304.05202 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    MacCrann et al

    N. MacCrann et al. (ACT), Astrophys. J. 966, 138 (2024), arXiv:2304.05196 [astro-ph.CO]. 6

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Ge et al

    F. Ge et al. (SPT-3G), Phys. Rev. D 111, 083534 (2025), arXiv:2411.06000 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  51. [59]

    F. J. Qu et al. (SPT-3G, ACT), (2025), arXiv:2504.20038 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  52. [60]

    Abdul Karim et al

    M. Abdul Karim et al. (DESI), (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Scolnic et al

    D. Scolnic et al. , Astrophys. J. 938, 113 (2022), arXiv:2112.03863 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, JCAP 05, 057 (2021), arXiv:2005.05290 [astro-ph.IM]

    2021 arXiv

  55. [63]

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues, and T. Tram, JCAP 1107, 034 (2011), arXiv:1104.2933 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Gelman and D

    A. Gelman and D. B. Rubin, Statist. Sci. 7, 457 (1992)

    1992

  57. [65]

    E. B. Holm, A. Nygaard, J. Dakin, S. Hannestad, and T. Tram, (2023), arXiv:2312.02972 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Ade et al

    P. Ade et al. (Simons Observatory), JCAP 02, 056 (2019), arXiv:1808.07445 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Abazajian et al

    K. Abazajian et al. , (2019), arXiv:1907.04473 [astro- ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Calderon, T

    R. Calderon, T. Simon, A. Shafieloo, and D. K. Hazra, (2025), arXiv:2504.06183 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  61. [69]

    A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), (2024), arXiv:2411.12022 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Laureijs et al

    R. Laureijs et al. (EUCLID), (2011), arXiv:1110.3193 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Di Valentino et al

    E. Di Valentino et al. (CosmoVerse), (2025), 10.1016/j.dark.2025.101965, arXiv:2504.01669 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025

  64. [72]

    Karwal and M

    T. Karwal and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D 94, 103523 (2016), arXiv:1608.01309 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Poulin, T

    V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, T. Karwal, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 221301 (2019), arXiv:1811.04083 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Ye and Y.-S

    G. Ye and Y.-S. Piao, Phys. Rev. D 101, 083507 (2020), arXiv:2001.02451 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  67. [75]

    G. Ye, B. Hu, and Y.-S. Piao, Phys. Rev. D 104, 063510 (2021), arXiv:2103.09729 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Jiang and Y.-S

    J.-Q. Jiang and Y.-S. Piao, Phys. Rev. D 105, 103514 (2022), arXiv:2202.13379 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  69. [77]

    T. L. Smith, M. Lucca, V. Poulin, G. F. Abellan, L. Balkenhol, K. Benabed, S. Galli, and R. Murgia, Phys. Rev. D 106, 043526 (2022), arXiv:2202.09379 [astro- ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Jiang, G

    J.-Q. Jiang, G. Ye, and Y.-S. Piao, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 527, L54 (2023), arXiv:2210.06125 [astro- ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Jiang, G

    J.-Q. Jiang, G. Ye, and Y.-S. Piao, Phys. Lett. B 851, 138588 (2024), arXiv:2303.12345 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Wang and Y.-S

    H. Wang and Y.-S. Piao, (2024), arXiv:2404.18579 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  73. [81]

    H. Wang, G. Ye, J.-Q. Jiang, and Y.-S. Piao, (2024), arXiv:2409.17879 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Poulin, T

    V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, R. Calder´ on, and T. Simon, (2025), arXiv:2505.08051 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, Y. Fantaye, and A. Heav- ens, Phys. Rev. D 98, 063508 (2018), arXiv:1808.09201 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Tightening constraints on primordial oscillations with latest ACT and SPT data

    W. Giar` e, F. Renzi, O. Mena, E. Di Valentino, and A. Melchiorri, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 521, 2911 (2023), arXiv:2210.09018 [astro-ph.CO]. 1 Supplemental Material for “Tightening constraints on primordial oscillations with latest ACT and SPT data” FULL RESUL TS OF MCMC A...

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.